07-15-2010, 04:23 PM
Several reasons to be annoyed by him, just to name a few:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->To understand the Shyamalan phenomenon, turn to his high-school yearbook. In a photograph doctored to look like the cover of Time magazine, M. Night is wearing a bow-tie, cummerbund, tuxedo top, and sneakers. The headlines above the photo read "Best Director" and "N.Y.U. grad takes Hollywood by storm."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although that last part about O'Donnell crying is ok in my book.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->wrote and directed a movie called Wide Awake (1998) for Miramax. It was the story of a sports-loving nun, played by Rosie O' Donnell, who helps a boy find God after his grandfather dies. The rough cut was too treacly even for Harvey Weinstein (a soft-touch for little kid movies, especially foreign ones), who unleashed a legendary speaker-phone tirade that humiliated Shyamalan and made O'Donnell cry.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->M. Night could not control the audience, however, and he was unhappy with the poor performance of his sophomore thriller, Unbreakable (2000). He vowed to inject more emotion (and box office) in his next effort. Again, Shyamalan made the talk show rounds, promising another twist ending and cultivating auteurish tics such as putting himself in the movie, just like Quentin, just like Hitchcock.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Then there are Shyamalan's directorial calling cards. Each of his thrillers runs exactly 106 minutes. (Asked why, he claims that each time it has happened by sheer coincidence.) As for his own acting appearances, Slate's David Edelstein has said that Shyamalan's Signs cameo was so creaky the director should have fired himself. He's shrouding himself in a counterfeit version of the auteur theory, which says that great directors reveal themselves by their tendencies, their tics. But is a twist ending an auteurist tic or just a way that Shyamalan gooses the audience again and again? There is a fine line between the auteur and the repetitious hack.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://img.slate.com/id/2104567/
And the straw that broke the camel's back for me can be summed up with his own self-annointed role as the central character/chosen one in Lady in the Water as a talented yet undiscovered writer who is left with the task of saving the world. That is a major reason why he was dismissed from Disney, aside from the fact that the film bombed.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Shyamalan cast himself as a visionary writer whose great thoughts would change the world<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%60WATER%27+......-a0148492151
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->To understand the Shyamalan phenomenon, turn to his high-school yearbook. In a photograph doctored to look like the cover of Time magazine, M. Night is wearing a bow-tie, cummerbund, tuxedo top, and sneakers. The headlines above the photo read "Best Director" and "N.Y.U. grad takes Hollywood by storm."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although that last part about O'Donnell crying is ok in my book.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->wrote and directed a movie called Wide Awake (1998) for Miramax. It was the story of a sports-loving nun, played by Rosie O' Donnell, who helps a boy find God after his grandfather dies. The rough cut was too treacly even for Harvey Weinstein (a soft-touch for little kid movies, especially foreign ones), who unleashed a legendary speaker-phone tirade that humiliated Shyamalan and made O'Donnell cry.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->M. Night could not control the audience, however, and he was unhappy with the poor performance of his sophomore thriller, Unbreakable (2000). He vowed to inject more emotion (and box office) in his next effort. Again, Shyamalan made the talk show rounds, promising another twist ending and cultivating auteurish tics such as putting himself in the movie, just like Quentin, just like Hitchcock.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Then there are Shyamalan's directorial calling cards. Each of his thrillers runs exactly 106 minutes. (Asked why, he claims that each time it has happened by sheer coincidence.) As for his own acting appearances, Slate's David Edelstein has said that Shyamalan's Signs cameo was so creaky the director should have fired himself. He's shrouding himself in a counterfeit version of the auteur theory, which says that great directors reveal themselves by their tendencies, their tics. But is a twist ending an auteurist tic or just a way that Shyamalan gooses the audience again and again? There is a fine line between the auteur and the repetitious hack.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://img.slate.com/id/2104567/
And the straw that broke the camel's back for me can be summed up with his own self-annointed role as the central character/chosen one in Lady in the Water as a talented yet undiscovered writer who is left with the task of saving the world. That is a major reason why he was dismissed from Disney, aside from the fact that the film bombed.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Shyamalan cast himself as a visionary writer whose great thoughts would change the world<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%60WATER%27+......-a0148492151